Original Article

Stratification of HPV-induced cervical pathology using the virally encoded molecular marker E4 in combination with p16 or MCM

  • Modern Pathology volume 28, pages 977993 (2015)
  • doi:10.1038/modpathol.2015.52
  • Download Citation


High-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) types cause cervical lesions of varying severity, ranging from transient productive infections to high-grade neoplasia. Disease stratification requires the examination of lesional pathology, and possibly also the detection of biomarkers. P16INK4a and MCM are established surrogates of high-risk HPV E6/E7 activity, and can be extensively expressed in high-grade lesions. Here we have combined these two cellular biomarkers with detection of the abundant HPV-encoded E4 protein in order to identify both productive and transforming lesions. This approach has allowed us to distinguish true papillomavirus infections from similar pathologies, and has allowed us to divide the heterogeneous CIN2 category into those that are CIN1-like and express E4, and those that more closely resemble nonproductive CIN3. To achieve this, 530 lesional areas were evaluated according to standard pathology criteria and by using a multiple staining approach that allows us to superimpose biomarker patterns either singly or in combination onto an annotated hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) image. Conventional grading of neoplasia was established by review panel, and compared directly with the composite molecular pathology visualized on the same tissue section. The detection of E4 coincided with the onset of vacuolation, becoming abundant in koilocytes as the MCM marker declined and cells lost their defined nuclear margins as visualized by standard H&E staining. Of the dual marker approaches, p16INK4a and E4 appeared most promising, with E4 generally identifying areas of low-grade disease even when p16INK4a was present. Extensive p16INK4a expression usually coincided with an absence of E4 expression or its focal retention in sporadic cells within the lesion. Our results suggest that a straightforward molecular evaluation of HPV life-cycle deregulation in cervical neoplasia may help improve disease stratification, and that this can be achieved using complementary molecular biomarker pairs such as MCM/E4 or, more promisingly, p16INK4a/E4 as an adjunct to conventional pathology.

  • Subscribe to Modern Pathology for full access:



Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.


  1. 1.

    , , et al. Comprehensive control of human papillomavirus infections and related diseases. Vaccine 2013;31:I1–31.

  2. 2.

    , , et al. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer 2010;127:2893–2917.

  3. 3.

    , , et al. The biology and life-cycle of human papillomaviruses. Vaccine 2012;30:F55–F70.

  4. 4.

    . The morphologic profile of HPV-related head and neck squamous carcinoma: implications for diagnosis, prognosis, and clinical management. Head Neck Pathol 2012;6:S48–S54.

  5. 5.

    , , et al. Classification of papillomaviruses. Virology 2004;324:17–27.

  6. 6.

    , , et al. Life cycle heterogeneity in animal models of human papillomavirus-associated disease. J Virol 2002;76:10401–10416.

  7. 7.

    . Diseases associated with human papillomavirus infection. Virology 2013;445:21–34.

  8. 8.

    . Histopathology and cytopathology of cervical cancer. Dis Markers 2007;23:199–212.

  9. 9.

    , , . Epithelial stem cells, wound healing and cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2012;12:170–180.

  10. 10.

    , , . Blaustein's Pathology of the Female Genital Tract. Springer: New York, USA, 2010.

  11. 11.

    , , et al. Establishment of human papillomavirus infection requires cell cycle progression. PLoS Pathog 2009;5:e1000318.

  12. 12.

    , , et al. Organization of human papillomavirus productive cycle during neoplastic progression provides a basis for selection of diagnostic markers. J Virol 2003;77:10186–10201.

  13. 13.

    , . Persistence of human papillomavirus infection: keys to malignant progression. Trends Microbiol 2011;19:33–39.

  14. 14.

    , , et al. Reconstruction of human papillomavirus type 16-mediated early-stage neoplasia implicates E6/E7 deregulation and the loss of contact inhibition in neoplastic progression. J Virol 2012;86:6358–6364.

  15. 15.

    , , et al. Integration of the HPV16 genome does not invariably result in high levels of viral oncogene transcripts. Oncogene 2008;27:1610–1617.

  16. 16.

    , , et al. Inhibition of cyclin D-CDK4/CDK6 activity is associated with an E2F-mediated induction of cyclin kinase inhibitor activity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1996;93:4350–4354.

  17. 17.

    , , et al. Persistence of type-specific human papillomavirus infection and increased long-term risk of cervical cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103:1387–1396.

  18. 18.

    , , et al. Long-term follow-up of HPV16-positive women: persistence of the same genetic variant and low prevalence of variant co-infections. PLoS One 2013;8:e80382.

  19. 19.

    , , et al. Progression of cervical low grade squamous intraepithelial lesions: in search of prognostic biomarkers. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013;170:501–506.

  20. 20.

    , , et al. Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a meta-analysis. Acta Cytol 2005;49:405–415.

  21. 21.

    , . Molecular basis for advances in cervical screening. Mol Diagn 2005;9:129–142.

  22. 22.

    , . The papillomavirus E7 proteins. Virology 2013;445:138–168.

  23. 23.

    , , et al. Viral and cellular biomarkers in the diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer. BioMed Res Int 2013;2013:519619.

  24. 24.

    , , et al. Biomarkers for cervical cancer screening: the role of p16(INK4a) to highlight transforming HPV infections. Expert Rev Proteomics 2012;9:149–163.

  25. 25.

    , , et al. Screening for cervical cancer precursors with p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology: results of the PALMS study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013;105:1550–1557.

  26. 26.

    , , . Human papillomavirus E7 oncoprotein induces KDM6A and KDM6B histone demethylase expression and causes epigenetic reprogramming. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011;108:2130–2135.

  27. 27.

    . Papillomavirus life cycle organization and biomarker selection. Dis Markers 2007;23:297–313.

  28. 28.

    , , et al. E4 antibodies facilitate detection and type-assignment of active HPV infection in cervical disease. PLoS One 2012;7:e49974.

  29. 29.

    , , et al. The impact of human papillomavirus genotype on colposcopic appearance: a cross-sectional analysis. BJOG 2014;121:1117–1126.

  30. 30.

    , , et al. Novel short-fragment PCR assay for highly sensitive broad-spectrum detection of anogenital human papillomaviruses. Am J Pathol 1998;153:1731–1739.

  31. 31.

    , , et al. Development and clinical evaluation of a highly sensitive PCR-reverse hybridization line probe assay for detection and identification of anogenital human papillomavirus. J Clin Microbiol 1999;37:2508–2517.

  32. 32.

    , , et al. One virus, one lesion—individual components of CIN lesions contain a specific HPV type. J Pathol 2012;227:62–71.

  33. 33.

    , , et al. Characterization of events during the late stages of HPV16 infection in vivo using high-affinity synthetic Fabs to E4. Virology 1997;238:40–52.

  34. 34.

    , , et al. Human papillomavirus genotype attribution in invasive cervical cancer: a retrospective cross-sectional worldwide study. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:1048–1056.

  35. 35.

    , , et al. Laser capture microdissection of cervical human papillomavirus infections: copy number of the virus in cancerous and normal tissue and heterogeneous DNA methylation. Virology 2009;390:261–267.

  36. 36.

    , , et al. Human papillomavirus types in 115,789 HPV-positive women: a meta-analysis from cervical infection to cancer. Int J Cancer 2012;131:2349–2359.

  37. 37.

    , , et al. Human papillomavirus type 16 E1—E4-induced G2 arrest is associated with cytoplasmic retention of active Cdk1/Cyclin B1 complexes. J Virol 2005;79:3998–4011.

  38. 38.

    , , et al. CIN2 is a much less reproducible and less valid diagnosis than CIN3: results from a histological review of population-based cervical samples. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2007;26:441–446.

  39. 39.

    , , et al. New technologies and procedures for cervical cancer screening. Vaccine 2012;30:F107–F116.

  40. 40.

    , , et al. Long-term protective effect of high-risk human papillomavirus testing in population-based cervical screening. Br J Cancer 2005;92:1800–1802.

  41. 41.

    , , et al. Long-term HPV type-specific risks for ASCUS and LSIL: a 14-year follow-up of a randomized primary HPV screening trial. Int J Cancer 2014;136:350–359.

  42. 42.

    , , et al. Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2014;383:524–532.

  43. 43.

    , , et al. High-risk human papillomavirus testing versus cytology in predicting post-treatment disease in women treated for high-grade cervical disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2012;125:500–507.

  44. 44.

    , , et al. Molecular biomarkers in cervical cancer diagnosis: a critical appraisal. Expert Opin Med Diagn 2013;7:365–377.

  45. 45.

    , , . MCM proteins and DNA replication. Curr Opin Cell Biol 2006;18:130–136.

  46. 46.

    , , et al. Quantitation of CDC6 and MCM5 mRNA in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix. Mod Pathol 2005;18:844–849.

  47. 47.

    , , et al. p16INK4A, CDC6, and MCM5: predictive biomarkers in cervical preinvasive neoplasia and cervical cancer. J Clin Pathol 2005;58:525–534.

  48. 48.

    , , et al. Inter- and intra-observer variation in the histopathological reporting of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions using a modified Bethesda grading system. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998;105:206–210.

  49. 49.

    , , et al. p16(INK4a) /Ki-67 dual labelling as a marker for the presence of high-grade cancer cells or disease progression in urinary cytopathology. Cytopathology 2013;24:327–334.

  50. 50.

    , , et al. Structural analysis reveals an amyloid form of the human papillomavirus type 16 E1— E4 protein and provides a molecular basis for its accumulation. J Virol 2008;82:8196–8203.

  51. 51.

    , , et al. Role of calpain in the formation of human papillomavirus type 16 E1-E4 amyloid fibers and reorganization of the keratin network. J Virol 2011;85:9984–9997.

  52. 52.

    , , et al. Phosphorylation of the human papillomavirus type 16 E1-E4 protein at T57 by ERK triggers a structural change that enhances keratin binding and protein stability. J Virol 2009;83:3668–3683.

  53. 53.

    . The E4 protein; structure, function and patterns of expression. Virology 2013;445:80–98.

  54. 54.

    , . G2/M cell cycle arrest in the life cycle of viruses. Virology 2007;368:219–226.

  55. 55.

    , , et al. After conisation of the cervix, the perinatal mortality as a result of preterm delivery increases in subsequent pregnancy. BJOG 2011;117:258–267.

  56. 56.

    , , et al. Obstetric outcome following cervical conization. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2011;283:765–769.

  57. 57.

    , , et al. Cervical excisional treatment of young women: a population-based study. Gynecol Oncol 2014;132:628–635.

  58. 58.

    , , et al. The selection and characterization of antibodies to minichromosome maintenance proteins that highlight cervical dysplasia. J Immunol Methods 2011;370:1–13.

  59. 59.

    , , et al. Using biomarkers as objective standards in the diagnosis of cervical biopsies. Am J Surg Pathol 2010;34:1077–1087.

  60. 60.

    , . Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance-Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion Triage Study Group. Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. JAMA 2001;285:1500–1505.

  61. 61.

    , , et al. HPV16 genotype, p16/Ki-67 dual staining and koilocytic morphology as potential predictors of the clinical outcome for cervical low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. Cytopathology 2013;26:10–18.

Download references


JD, HG, YS, and ZW were funded by the UK Medical Research Council. RvB was funded by the Stichting Pathologie Ontwikkeling en Onderzoek (SPOO) Foundation, The Netherlands.

Author information


  1. Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    • Heather Griffin
    •  & John Doorbar
  2. National Institute for Medical Research, London, UK

    • Heather Griffin
    • , Yasmina Soneji
    • , Zhonglin Wu
    •  & John Doorbar
  3. DDL Diagnostic Laboratory, Rijswijk, The Netherlands

    • Romy Van Baars
    • , David Jenkins
    • , Miekel van de Sandt
    •  & Wim Quint
  4. University College Hospital, London, UK

    • Rupali Arora
    •  & Albert Singer
  5. Department of Gynecology and Oncology, Jagiellonian University College, Krakow, Poland

    • Robert Jach
    • , Krzysztof Okon
    •  & Hubert Huras


  1. Search for Heather Griffin in:

  2. Search for Yasmina Soneji in:

  3. Search for Romy Van Baars in:

  4. Search for Rupali Arora in:

  5. Search for David Jenkins in:

  6. Search for Miekel van de Sandt in:

  7. Search for Zhonglin Wu in:

  8. Search for Wim Quint in:

  9. Search for Robert Jach in:

  10. Search for Krzysztof Okon in:

  11. Search for Hubert Huras in:

  12. Search for Albert Singer in:

  13. Search for John Doorbar in:

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Doorbar.